1)

TOSFOS DH RA'UY LITOL V'EIN LO

úåñ' ã"ä øàåé ìéèåì åàéï ìå

(Summary: Tosfos first clarifies the statement and elaborates, then goes on to explain why the Gemara does not give the same answer earlier as it gives here, and vice-versa.)

ôéøåù - 'øàåé ìéèåì' - àí úôñ, 'åàéï ìå' - àí ìà úôñ.

(a)

Clarification: This means that 'He ought to receive it' - if he seizes it, but that 'He does not' - if he doesn't seize it..

åãå÷à äéëà ãéù ìå úáéòä òì ùðé äùååøéí, òì äâãåì åòì ä÷è, àí úôñ îùúìí.

1.

Clarification (cont.): And this speaks specifically where he has a claim on both oxen, on the large one and on the small one - only then may he retain it if he seizes it ...

àáì îúðé' ãìòéì ãàéï ìå úáéòä àìà òì äâãåì, àôé' úôñ ä÷èï, àéï îùúìí îéðéä.

2.

Clarification (cont.): ... but the Mishnah above speaks where he only has a claim on the large one, in which case, even if he seizes the small one, he is not permitted to retian it.

åìà ùééê ìùðåéé ìòéì 'øàåé ìéèåì åàéï ìå'?

(b)

Implied Question: The Gemara could not have answered earlier 'Ra'uy Litol ve'Ein lo' ...

ëéåï ãàí úôñ ìà îùúìí îéðéä.

(c)

Answer: ... since if he would have seized it, he would not have been permitted to claim from it.

åá'èòðå çèéí ... ' ðøàä ãàí úôñ ùòåøéí, ìà îùúìí.

(d)

Clarification (cont.): And in the case of 'Ta'ano Chitim ... ' too, it would seem that even if he seized barley, he would not be permitted to retain it.

åà"ú, àîàé ìà îùðé äëà ëãìòéì - ã'÷àîø ðéæ÷ "ùîà" åîæé÷ "áøé" '?

(e)

Question: Why does the Gemara not answer here like it answered above - 'That the Nizak said "Shema" and the Mazik "Bari" '?

åé"ì, ãà"ë, äå"î ìîéôøê 'äééðå äê', ëãôéøù á÷åðèøñ.

(f)

Answer: Because if that were so, the Gemara could have asked that the two cases are one and the same.

åäùúà àéëà öøéëåúà áëåìäå ááé ãîúðéúéï ...

(g)

Conclusion: It now transpires that each case in the Mishnah is necessary:

ãøéùà àùîòéðï àôéìå îæé÷ ùîà åðéæ÷ áøé ôìéâé øáðï òìéä ãñåîëåñ, åàîøé 'äîåöéà îçáéøå òìéå äøàéä', åääåà 'ã÷èï åâãåì' îùîéòðå àôéìå ðéæ÷ 'ùîà' åîæé÷ 'áøé', ôìéâ ñåîëåñ ...

1.

Case #1 & #2: The Reisha teaches us that the Rabbanan argue with Sumchus and say 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero, alav ha'Re'ayah' even in a case where the Mazik says 'Shema' and the Nizak, 'Bari'; whereas the case of 'Katan and Gadol' teaches us that even where the Nizak says 'Shema' and the Mazik, 'Bari', Sumchus argues ... .

å'àçã úí åàçã îåòã' àùîòéðï ãàôéìå ìø' àçà, ãàîø áøéù ôø÷ äîåëø ôéøåú (á"á ãó öâ.) 'âîì äàåçø áéï äâîìéí, áéãåò ùæä äøâ, îåãä äëà ãìà úìéðï áîåòã, ëéåï ãùðéäí øöéï.

2.

Case #3: '...and 'Echad Tam ve'Echad Mua'ad' teaches us that even according to Rebbi Acha, who holds at the beginning of Perek ha'Mocher Peiros (Bava Basra, Daf 93a) in the case of 'Gamal ha'Ocher (that is flirting) bein ha'Gemalim' that it is the one that killed, will concede here that we do not ascribe the goring to the Mu'ad, since both animals were running.

åäê ã'äðéæ÷éï ùðéí' àùîåòéðï ãàé úôñ, ù÷éì ëãàîø îæé÷ ...

3.

Case #3: ... whereas case of 'Two Nezikin' teaches us that if he seizes one, he takes according to what the Mazik says.

åñéôà ã'úí åîåòã' àééãé ãàééøé ááà ãìòéì áâãåì å÷èï åúí åîåòã, àééøé ðîé äëà.

4.

Case #4: And the Tana inserts that of 'Tam and Mu'ad' because, since the previous case speaks about a large and small one and a Tam and a Mu'ad, he adds this case too.

2)

TOSFOS DH SH'MA MINAH

úåñ' ã"ä ù"î

(Summary: Tosfos gives the source of the conclusion and explains why the Gemara says 'Sh'ma Minah', instead of querying the statement.)

îã÷úðé 'ùðéäí', øöä ... '.

(a)

Reason: Since the Mishnah says 'Sheneihem, if he wants ... .

åàí àáã äàçã, ÷í çáøå úçúéå åîùúìí äéîðå'. ëê ôéøù á÷åðèøñ.

(b)

Explanation #1: ... if one of them is lost, the other one takes its place and he can claim from it'. This is how Rashi explains the Gemara.

å÷ùä, ãìà äåä ìéä ìîéîø 'ùîò îéðä' àìà îñéôà äåä ìéä ìîôøê, ã÷úðé 'àçã âãåì åàçã ÷èï, äîåöéà îçáéøå òìéå äøàéä, åîùìí ìâãåì îï ä÷èï' ...

(c)

Question: In that case, the Gemara should not have said 'Sh'ma Minah', but should rather have asked from the Seifa, which states 'If one of them is large and one of them small, "ha'Motzi me'Chavero, alav ha'Re'ayah", and he can (only) claim the large one from the body of the small one' ...

à"ë, ëùàáã àçã îäï, ìà îùúìí îàåúå ùðùàø?

1.

Question: ... in which case, in the event that one of them gets lost, he cannot claim from the remaining one?

åðøàä ìôøù - ãáùðé ùååøéí ùäæé÷å ùåø áåãàé àééøé, ãçùéá ëàéìå äåé çã âåôà åîùúìí îï äùðéí.

(d)

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that it is speaking where two oxen both damaged the one ox, and it is as if they are one body - and that is why he can claim from both of them.

åàò"â ãîúðéúéï ìà àééøé àìà áòðéï ùàðå îñåô÷éí àéæä îäï ðâç ...

(e)

Implied Question: And even though the Mishnah is speaking where we are in doubt as to which of them gored ...

î"î ãéé÷ îìéùðà ã÷úðé 'ùðéäí çééáéí', ìàùîåòéðï ùéëåì ìäéåú ùéäéå ùðéäí çééáéï, ëâåï àé éãòéðï áåãàé ùäæé÷å ùðéäí éçã.

(f)

Answer: ... the Gemara nevertheless extrapolates from the Lashon 'Sheneihem Chayavim', that it is possible for both of them to be Chayav - where we know for sure that both of them damaged together.

3)

TOSFOS DH V'REBBI AKIVA HI D'AMAR SHUTFIN NINHU

úåñ' ã"ä åøáé ò÷éáà äéà ãàîø ùåúôéï ðéðäå

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's explanation regarding why the Gemara establishes the Mishnah like Rebbi Akiva.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ - ãìø' éùîòàì ãàîø á"ç äåà åæåæé äåà ãîñé÷ áéä, àí àáã äàçã, ìà àéáã æëåúå.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that according to Rebbi Yishmael, who says that the Mazik is a creditor and that he owes the Nizak money, even if he loses one of them, he has not lost his right to claim.

å÷ùä, ãäà ìòéì (ãó ìâ.) àîø 'àôéìå ìø' éùîòàì, ùçèå, îä ùòùä òùåé'?

(b)

Question: But the Gemara said earlier (on Daf 33a) that, 'Even according to Rebbi Yihmael, if the Mazik Shechted it, what he did is done'.

åðøàä ìôøù ãîùåí äëé îå÷é ìä ëø' ò÷éáà, îùåí ãìø' éùîòàì àéï ùåí çéãåù, ãôùéèà ãàéáã æëåúå ëùàáã äàçã, ëéåï ãá"ç äåà ...

(c)

Explanation #2: One must therefore explain that the Gemara establishes the Mishnah like Rebbi Akiva, because according to Rebbi Yishmael there would be no Chidush, since it is obvious that, if one of them is lost, he has lost his right to claim, seeing as he is a creditor.

àáì ìø' ò÷éáà ãùåúôé ðéðäå, ñ"ã ãäåé ëàéìå äàçã îï äùðéí áçæ÷ú äðéæ÷, åîöé ìîéîø ðéæ÷ 'ùìê ðàáã åìà ùìé'.

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas according to Rebbi Akiva, who holds that they are partners, we might have thought that one of the two oxen is in the Chazakah of the Nizak, and the Nizak can therefore say to the Mazik 'It is your ox that is lost and not mine!' (See Mesores ha'Shas).

HADRAN ALACH 'HA'MENI'ACH
4)

TOSFOS DH SHOR SHE'NAGACH ARBA'AH V'CHAMISHAH: I K'REBBI AKIVA D'AMAR SHUTFIN NINHU YACHZIR L'KULAN MIBA'I LEIII

úåñ' ã"ä ùåø ùðâç àøáòä åçîùä: àé ëøáé ò÷éáà ãàîø ùåúôéï ðéðäå éçæéø ìëåìï îáòé ìéä

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the first one does not benefit, according to Rebbi Akiva and rejects a suggested answer,)

úéîä, ãìø' ò÷éáà ðîé àîàé àéï øàùåï ðùëø, ãìîä éäà îåèì òìéå ìùîåø çì÷å ëì æîï ùìà òîã áãéï åìà áàå òãéí. ãîä äåà éåãò àí éæëä?

(a)

Question: According to Rebbi Akiva too, the first one ought to benefit - Why is the onus on him to guard his portion as long as he has not been to Beis-Din and witnesses have not come. So how does he know that he will win the case?

åöøéê ìãçå÷ ãëéåï ùéù áéãå ìäáéà òãéí ìàìúø åìæëåú, îúçééá áùîéøúå.

(b)

Answer: We are therefore forced to say that the fact that he is able to bring witnesses immediately and to take it, obligates him to look guard it.

åìà îöé ìùðåéé 'ëâåï ùàéï áéãå' ...

(c)

Refuted Answer: And we cannot answer that it speaks where he does not have it ...

ãàí ëï, úé÷ùé ìéä ìøáé ò÷éáà øàùåï ðùëø îáòé ìéä?

(d)

Refutation: ... because in that case, there would be a Kashya on Rebbi Akiva - that the Tana ought to have said that the first one benefits.

36b----------------------------------------36b

5)

TOSFOS DH K'GON SHETAFSO NIZAK ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ëâåï ùúôñå ðéæ÷ ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies Rebbi Yishmael's opinion.)

åãå÷à ìø' éùîòàì äåà ðòùä ùåîø ùëø, àáì ìø' ò÷éáà ãàîø 'ùåúôéï ðéðäå', åëéçù åùéáç äåé áøùåú äðéæ÷, ìà ðòùä ùåîø ùëø àìà îçì÷å, ãòì ëì àçã îåèì ìùîåø çì÷å.

(a)

Clarification: It is specifically according to Rebbi Yishmael that the Mazik becomes a Shomer Sachar, because according to Rebbi Akiva, who holds that 'They are partners', and that the ox becomes weaker or stronger in the domain of the Nizak, he only becomes a Shomer Sachar on his portion, since the onus lies with each one to look after his portion (See Maharam).

åäùúà àúé ùôéø ãáéï ø' îàéø åáéï ø' ùîòåï àééøé áùúôñå ðéæ÷.

(b)

Inference: It now makes sense, since, both according to Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon, it speaks where the Nizak seized the ox ...

åìà ëôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ.

1.

Conclusion: ... and not like Rashi's explanation.

6)

TOSFOS DH IM YESH BO MOSAR BI'NEZAKAV

úåñ' ã"ä àí éù áå îåúø áðæ÷éå ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and elaborates on it.)

åäùúà 'àçøåï àçøåï ðùëø' ãîúðéúéï à'àçøåï ùáëåìí ãäåà äçîéùé ÷àé

(a)

Clarification: It now transpires that 'Acharon Acharon Niskar' in the Mishnah refers to the very last one, which is the fifth one.

àáì ôòîéí ùäøáéòé àéï ìå ëìåí åäùìéùé éù ìå - ëâåï ùðæ÷é ã' åä' ùåéí, åðæ÷é â' éúøéí.

(b)

Elaboration: But sometimes the fourth one receives nothing, and the third one does - there where the damage done to the fourth and fifth oxen is the same, but the damage done to the third ox exceeds it.

åàôé' çîéùé ðîé ôòîéí ùàéï ìå ëì ðæ÷å - àí ðæ÷éå éúøéí òì ùì øáéòé, ùàéï ðåèì àìà çì÷å ùì øáéòé.

1.

Elaboration: And there are times where also the fifth one does not receive the total damage - where the damage done to his ox exceeds that done to the fourth ox, in which case he only takes the portion of the fourth one.

åîéäå ëùëì äðæ÷éï ùåéï, ëåìï îôñéãéï åäàçøåï ðùëø.

(c)

Conclusion: However, when all the damages are equal, then they all lose, and only the last one gains.

7)

TOSFOS DH NOSEIN LO SELA

úåñ' ã"ä ðåúï ìå ñìò

(Summary: Tosfos defines the Sela here, and discusses the difference between it and the Manah Tzuri of Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili.)

áñìò îãéðä àééøé ëãîåëç áñîåê, åîðä ãø"é äâìéìé äåà îðä öåøé ëãîåëç áäçåáì (ì÷îï ãó ö:).

(a)

Clarification: It is speaking about a Sela Medinah, as is evident in the Gemara shortly, whereas the Manah of Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, as is a Manah Tzuri, as is evident (later on Daf 90b).

åúéîä ìåîø ùçìå÷éí ë"ë æä îæä, ãñìò îãéðä àçã îîàúéí áîðä öåøé?

(b)

Question: It is surprising however, that the difference between them should be so great, as a Sela Medinah is one two hundredth of a Manah Tzuri?

åðøàä ìø"ú ãìà ôìéâé àìà äàé áòðé åäàé áòùéø.

(c)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that they do not argue, only one of them (the Tana Kama) speaks about a poor man, the other (Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili), about a rich man.

åîéäå îã÷àîø áäçåáì (ùí) 'äà àðà äà ø"é äâìéìé', îùîò ÷öú ãôìéâé.

(d)

Reservations: However, since the Gemara says in 'ha'Chovel' (Ibid.) 'Here am I, and here is Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili', gives the impression that they do argue.

î"î àò"â ãôìéâé, îöéðå ìîéîø ãæä ãéáø áòùéø åæä ãéáø áòðé ëø"ú ...

(e)

Conclusion: Nevertheless, even though they do argue, we can say that one of them is speaking about a rich man and the other, about a poor man, like Rabeinu Tam ...

ãà"à ùàí áåùúå ùì òðé ñìò ùìà éòìä áåùúå ùì òùéø ôçåú àå éåúø îîðä.

1.

Conclusion (cont.): ... since it is not possible that, if the shame of a poor man is a Sela, the shame of a rich man should not be less or more than a Manah (See Maharam).

8)

TOSFOS DH V'SHEL DIVREIHEM KESEF MEDINAH

úåñ' ã"ä åùì ãáøéäí ëñó îãéðä

(Summary: Tosfos restricts this statement of Rav Yehudah to fixed amounts of Sela'im.)

ðøàä ìø"é ãøá éäåãä ìà àééøé àìà áñìòéí ãåîéà ãëñó äàîåø áúåøä, ãîôøù ô"÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ãó éà.) ëñó ÷öåá ...

(a)

Clarification: The Ri explains that Rav Yehudah is referring specifically to Sela'im that are similar ro the Kesef of which the Torah speaks, which the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 11a) is fixed amounts of silver ...

åìà îöéðå ëñó ÷öåá áúåøä àìà ñìòéí, ëãîôøù äúí 'ä' ñìòéí ìôãéåï äáï, ð' ùì àåðñ, ÷' ùì îåöéà ù"ø, åì' ùì òáã' ...

1.

Source: And it is only with regard to Sela'im that we find fixed amounts of silver, as the Gemara explains there 'the Five Sela'im of Pidyon ha'Ben, the twenty, of rape, thd hundred of Motzi Shem Ra and the thirty of Eved'.

åãåîéà ãäðé äåé 'ùì ãáøéäí'.

2.

Source (cont.): ... and the 'shel Divreihem' is similar to them.

àáì ùàø îèáòåú ùì ãáøéäí äåé ëñó öåøé ...

(b)

Clarification (cont.): ... but other coins, even if they are de'Rabanan, are Kesef Tzuri (See Hagahos ha'G'ra) ...

ãäà îðä ùì ø"é äâìéìé äåé öåøé, ëãîåëç áäçåáì (ì÷îï ãó ö:).

(c)

Proof #1: Since we see that the Manah of Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili is a Manah Tzuri, as is evident (later on Daf 90b).

åëúåáä ðîé äåé îàúéí æåæ ùì öåøé - ìî"ã ëúåáú àùä ãøáðï ëîå ìî"ã ãàåøééúà ãðô÷à ìï î"ëîåäø äáúåìåú" ...

(d)

Proof #2: And Kesubah too, is two hundred Zuz Tzuri - according to the opinion that considers Kesubas Ishah de'Rabbanan, no less than the opinion that considers it d'Oraysa, since we learn it from "ke'Mohar ha'Besulos" ...

ãìà ôìéâé øùá"â åøáðï áôø÷ áúøà ãëúåáåú (ã' ÷é:) àìà àí ðåúï ìä îîòåú àøõ éùøàì àå îîòåú ÷ôåè÷éà, àáì ìë"ò ðåúï ìä ùåä îàúéí æåæ îîòåú öåøé.

1.

Source: Since Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabanan only argue in the last Perek of Kesuvos (Daf 110b) over whether he has to give her the coins of Eretz Yisrael or of Keputki, but both agree that he must give her the value of two hundred Zuz of Ma'os Tzuri.

åàôéìå ëúåáú àìîðä ùäéà ãøáðï, ìë"ò äåé îðä öåøé ...

(e)

Proof #3: And even the Kesubah of an Almanah, which is only de'Rabanan, is Manah Tzuri according to all opinions ...

ãáô"÷ ãëúåáåú (ãó éá.) îùîò ÷öú ãùì áúåìä ëôìéí îùì àìîðä - âáé 'àçã àìîðú ëäï åàçã àìîðú éùøàì'.

1.

Source: ... because in Kesuvos (Daf 12a) it is implied slightly that the Kesubah of a Besulah is double that of an Almanah - in the Sugya of 'Echad Almanas Kohen ve'Echad Almanas Yisrael'.

9)

TOSFOS DH YAD ANIYIM ANAN

úåñ' ã"ä éã òðééí àðï

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Gemara in Rosh ha'Shanah.)

åà"ú, áìà 'éã òðééí' ðîé îçééá öã÷ä áàîéøä, ëããøùéðï áô"÷ ãø"ä (ãó å.) "áôéê", 'æå öã÷ä'?

(a)

Question: Even without 'Yad Aniyim', he ought to be Chayav Tzedakah with his words, as the Gemara Darshens in the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 6a) "be'Ficha", 'Zu Tzedakah'.

åé"ì, ãëîå ùàéï àãí î÷ãéù ãáø ùìà áà ìòåìí, ä"ð àéï àãí ðåúï öã÷ä ãáø ùìà áà ìòåìí; åëùàîø 'ðéúáéä ìòðééí', äåé æä äçåá ëîå ùìà áà ìòåìí.

(b)

Answer #1: Just as a person cannot be Makdish something that is not yet in the world, so too, can he not give as Tzedakah something that is not yet in the world, and when he said 'Give it to the poor!', it is as if the debt was not yet in the world.

åëï àí äéä àåîø 'ðéúáéä ìä÷ãù', ìà äéä ä÷ãù ÷åðä.

1.

Answer #1 (cont.): ... and in the same way, if he were to say 'Give it to Hekdesh', Hekdesh would not acquire it either.

åðäé ùàí äéä àåîø 'çåá æä ìëùéáà ìéãé àúðäå ìä÷ãù àå ìöã÷ä' ãåîä ùîúçééá îèòí ðãø ...

(c)

Answer #1 (cont.): Granted, if he were to say 'When I retrieve this debt I will give it to Hekdesh' or 'to Tzedakah' he would presumably be obligated to give it because it is a Neder ...

àáì æä ìà àîø ëï àìà àîø 'úðäå ìòðééí' åìà ðãø.

1.

Answer #1 (cont.): But what he said was 'Give it to the poor', and did not make a Neder.

åø"ç ôéøù ùæä ìà äéä øåöä ìçæåø áå îï äöã÷ä àìà äéä øåöä ììååúå ìôé ùòä åìäçæéø àçø ìòðééí úçúéå, åà"ì øá éåñó ã'éã òðééí àðï', åæëéðï áå áîòîã ùìùúï.

(d)

Answer #2: Rabeinu Chananel however, explains that the person in our case did not want to retract from the Tzedakah, only to borrow it temporarily and to give other money to the poor instead, only Rav Yosef informed him 'Yad Aniyim Anan', and they had acquired it in the presence of the three concerned parties ...

åàîøéðï áô"÷ ãòøëéï (ã' å.) 'äàåîø "ñìò æå ìöã÷ä", òã ùìà áà ìéã âáàé îåúø ìùðåúå, îùáà ìéã âáàé àñåø ìùðåúå'.

1.

Source: And the Gemara says in the first Perek of Erchin (Daf 6a) that "If someone says 'Sela zu li'Tzedakah' then he may switch it as long as it has not yet reached the hand of the Gabai Tzedakah, but not once it has (See Mesores ha'Shas).